MotherJones Blog: At GOP Debate, McCain and Romney Bicker Over Whom Reagan Would Love More

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

At GOP Debate, McCain and Romney Bicker Over Whom Reagan Would Love More

At the end of the final Republican presidential primary before Super-Duper Tuesday, CNN's Anderson Cooper, the lead moderator, noted it had been "a remarkable evening of politics." Not so.

The debate, held at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California, on Wednesday night, was all-too predictably a contest in Reagan-hugging, with John McCain, the apparent frontrunner, and Mitt Romney, the apparent No. 2, trying to out-Reagan the other. Neither said much new. After all, they agree on keeping in place George W. Bush's war in Iraq and his tax cuts. But the two men needed something to argue about, so they tussled over McCain's charge that Romney last spring supported setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. This was the exchange that would be sliced and diced by the pundits and the analysts. In a way, both McCain and Romney were wrong.

This dust-up began last week when McCain said "Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats are seeking." McCain pointed to an ABC News interview, during which Romney was asked, "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?" His reply:

Well, there's no question--but that the President and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're gonna be gone. You wanna have a series of things you wanna see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the, of the Iraqi government.

Was Romney talking about a timetable for a withdrawal or a timetable for other steps? He wasn't clear. So the interviewer pressed him: "You wouldn't do it publicly because - the President has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for - troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?" And Romney said,

Well, could you, yeah - well, of course. Could you, could you imagine the setting where, where during the Second World War we said to the, the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished, we'll, we'll pull up and leave? You don't, you don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie and wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the, with the opposition.

Romney might have been talking about a timetable for some sort of disengagement. It seems more that he was trying to be both for winning the war and for ending the war. Yet McCain has overstated the case by proclaiming Romney was an outright supporter of establishing a date for withdrawal.

At the debate, neither budged. Romney called McCain a liar and declared this was a "dirty trick." McCain fired off another blast and essentially branded Romney a weasel, noting that in December 2006 Romney declined to take a position on boosting troops in Iraq, when McCain was fighting for such a policy. Romney had at that time said that as a governor he would not be weighing in on the matter, but a month later he backed Bush's so-called surge right before Bush announced it. Nice timing, there.

It took Ron Paul to raise the obvious meta-point: both men were arguing over "technicalities of a policy they agree with." But it was obvious that the two main GOP candidates have little respect for the other. While jousting over all this, McCain bitterly snapped at Romney for running negative ads against him and against Mike Huckabee. "You can spend it all," he said, referring to Romney's fortune.

In calmer portions of the evening, Romney tried to depict McCain as not a true Reagan conservative, citing McCain's support for bipartisan legislation dealing with campaign finance reform, global warming, and immigration. He also slapped McCain for having initially opposed Bushs tax cuts. (Surrounded by Reaganites, McCain declined to repeat his original reason for that opposition: that those tax cuts were tilted to the wealthy.) McCain punched back, calling the former Massachusetts governor a tax-raiser and excoriating him for passing health care reform that compels citizens of his state to obtain medical insurance.

For most of the night, Huckabee and Paul were bystanders.

The debate left the GOP race where it has been for months: a contest dominated by self-proclaimed conservatives who many conservatives don't embrace or fancy. Both McCain and Romney been trying to shine up their I-Love-Reagan badge. But neither stands above the pack when it comes to true-blue conservative credentials. At this stage, whoever wins the GOP nomination will be the object of suspicion and disappointment for a great deal of conservatives. At the end of the debate, one could almost imagine Reagan looking in and saying, "Is this the best we can do?" Short answer: yes.

Comments

The MSM loves our interventionist foreign policies and has marginalized the only non-interventionist in either party. Even though he has probably the most money going into Super Tuesday and will be airing ads in most of these states, the MSM has had an almost total blackout of Ron Paul despite coming in 2nd in both the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses. If he gets any coverage, it is derogatory, and mean spirited.

Posted by: DF Robichaux on 01/30/08 at 7:55 PM Respond

Ugh. Barf.

Posted by: Ben Braman on 01/30/08 at 11:15 PM Respond

Oddly enough, only Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were eloquent in their responses (I especially liked Huckabee's response about how he wouldn't presume to have Reagan's blessings).

Most of the debate was taken up by questions for Romnuts and McAnus, bickering between the two, and using Reagan's name in vain.

Posted by: Paul on 01/30/08 at 11:31 PM Respond

Liars, weasels, and the GOP. Reagan is dead so, McCain and Romney's professions of 'amour' for Dear Dead Leader seem mostly necrophilic.

Posted by: Skulz Fontaine on 01/31/08 at 4:20 AM Respond

"he was trying to be both for winning the war and for ending the war"

????

What war?

We are occupying Iraq - it is an occupation. Nobody, no country, no military can WIN an occuptaion. So what are you talking about?

Until we get the words right - the words are wrong.

Posted by: capt on 01/31/08 at 5:39 AM Respond

who the hell cares what reagan would of thought? he's the one that started this giant mess of goverment in the first place.

Posted by: mary on 01/31/08 at 9:35 AM Respond

Mary: I agree with you. The eople have forgotten what Reagan really did to our economy. Let Reagan rest in peace!

Posted by: MSO on 01/31/08 at 10:34 AM Respond

How is it that people are supporting 'less jobs-more war' McCain when 70% of Americans are against it? McCain will, I say, be a disaster because he has no economical plan and sees war as a solution. MBA Romney on the other hand, I think, would implement all kinds of Hooverton schemes that would lead to a another depression. Huckabee, although a decent guy, is just not a leader.

Ron Paul is speaking truth to power, a good thing, but its costing him dearly.

Of Republicans I would like to see Paul president, of Democrats I would choose Edwards.

Sadly our twisted, subservient MSM, will be the deciding factor. [And Diebold]

Interventionism is a euphemism for empire. -Me

Posted by: Ya Know... on 01/31/08 at 5:13 PM Respond

Ron Paul was the top GOP fundraiser in the 4th quarter. He is running ads all over the country and he doesn't have to borrow money to do it. His frugal, debt free, campaign is an indicator of how well he would do with our country's budget. Of course, yet again, the mainstream media blacks him out. What are they trying to hide from the American people? When they do cover him, they try to marginalize him. Find out the truth. Check him out for yourself at www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by: Tammy on 02/01/08 at 7:26 AM Respond

why bother?

Ron Paul is a kook and to think for a moment he could be president is insane.

The Paulites swore he would win but he can't win a single primary.

The libertarian ideals are not matched by an anti-abortion nutcase.

Get real - get over it.

Mr. 3% is not worth the effort.

Posted by: capt on 02/01/08 at 7:48 AM Respond

["Mr. 3% is not worth the effort."]

..and yet YOUR effort continues unabated.

That you aren't really convinced of what you keep trying to convince US of is obvious, so perhaps you should consider no longer publicly humiliating yourself in this fashion.

Posted by: Alternate Reality Check on 02/01/08 at 10:23 AM Respond

Compared to the Democratic debate last evening, the last GOP debate looked like a hillbilly Guns n' God rally, with these poorly informed schmucks trying to out-macho and out-holy one another. What a bunch of losers! There was virtually nothing of any substance discussed, because they have no ideas or vision, only to pile more debt on to our children's backs by looting the U.S. Treasury to give tax cuts to rich people who don't need or want them. To answer the question of which is most like Reagan, I would go with McCain, since he too will soon be sitting in his own feces in a diaper, babbling and drooling on himself. The GOP is beyond pathetic anymore......

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on 02/01/08 at 10:58 AM Respond

I really do not know why an author like yourself would even take the time to talk about McCain or Romney, when in reality neither performed well. The fact is, Ron Paul is the closest to being a Republican, the most conservative in terms foreign policy and fiscal management, as well as a previous supporter of Reagon. Dr. Paul even had Reagon's endorsement the time he ran for congress in the 70's.
Dr. Paul had the straight answers in this debate and he danced around the other candidates. He might not have said a lot, being censured, but he made his points clear.

Posted by: Kort Schmidt on 02/01/08 at 6:21 PM Respond

And did you catch Romney's comment about being there "in the house of Reagan?" Did I take that the wrong way or have the Conservatives made Ronald Reagan their new God?

Posted by: Psych Nurse on 02/02/08 at 4:46 AM Respond

You are like most people that have been weaned into subservience to your "masters". WE THE PEOPLE, on the other hand have a man that recognizes that all politician's duty is to work FOR us. (sheepie)

Posted by: Robin Dicken on 02/02/08 at 11:12 PM Respond